The Lokpal and Lokayuktas are important institutions in India designed to combat corruption among public servants. Established under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act of 2013, they aim to promote accountability and transparency in government. However, these institutions face several challenges that hinder their effectiveness. Understanding these challenges is crucial for improving their functioning and enhancing the fight against corruption.
Lokpal and Lokayuktas: Framework for Grievance Redressal and Anti-Corruption in India
Various Challenges faced by Lokpal and Lokayuktas in India
- Delayed Appointments: The process of appointing Lokpal and Lokayuktas has been marred by delays, hindering their operational effectiveness.
- For instance, the Lokpal at the central level was not appointed for several years after the passage of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act in 2013.
- Example: The Lokpal at the central level was not appointed until March 2019, several years after the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act was enacted in 2013.
- Lack of Constitutional Backing: The Lokpal lacks constitutional backing and there are inadequate provisions for appeal against the Lokpal.
- Limited Jurisdiction: The jurisdiction of Lokpal and Lokayuktas is limited to certain categories of public servants, and there are exclusions, such as the exclusion of the Prime Minister from certain types of complaints. Further, the judiciary has also been excluded from the ambit of the act.
- Example: Complaints against the Prime Minister related to international relations and security have certain exclusions, limiting the Lokpal’s scope in addressing issues of national importance.
- Lack of Awareness: Many citizens are not fully aware of the existence and functions of Lokpal and Lokayuktas, limiting the number of complaints filed and reducing their impact.
- Resource Constraints: Lokpal and Lokayuktas often face resource constraints, including inadequate staffing and infrastructure, which can affect their ability to handle a large number of complaints effectively.
- Political Interference: There are concerns about potential political interference in the functioning of these institutions, affecting their independence.
- Instances of interference may undermine their credibility and effectiveness.
- Complex Complaint Procedures: The complaint procedures may be perceived as complex, leading to hesitancy among citizens to file complaints.
- Simplifying and streamlining the process could encourage more people to come forward.
Note:
- Maharashtra was the first state to introduce Lokayukta through the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act in 1971.
- Other states which have introduced lokayukta in India are Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Odisha and Jharkhand.
|
Difference between Lokpal and Lokayukta
| Aspect |
Lokpal |
Lokayukta |
| Jurisdiction |
- Operates at the national level.
|
- Operates at the state level.
|
| Scope |
- Primarily focuses on central government officials and agencies
|
- Focuses on state government officials and agencies.
|
| Appointment |
- Lokpal members are appointed by the President of India based on recommendations from a selection committee.
|
- Lokayukta members are appointed by the Governor of the respective state based on recommendations from a selection committee.
|
| Composition |
- Consists of a Chairperson and up to eight members, including judicial and non-judicial members.
|
- The composition may vary by state but typically includes a Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta, along with other members as decided by the state government.
|
| Oversight |
- Provides oversight and investigates corruption and misconduct in central government institutions
|
- Provides oversight and investigates corruption and misconduct in state government institutions.
|
| Functions |
- Handles cases related to bribery, corruption, and maladministration at the national level.
|
- Handles cases related to bribery, corruption, and maladministration at the state level.
|
| Accountability |
- Lokpal is accountable to the President of India
|
- Lokayukta is accountable to the Governor of the respective state.
|
Effectiveness of Lokpal and Lokayukta Institutions in Practice
- Formation and Functioning: The establishment of Lokpal at the central level and Lokayuktas at the state level marked a significant step in combating corruption.
- These institutions were created to investigate complaints of corruption against public servants.
- Increased Accountability: The mere existence of these institutions has brought attention to issues of corruption and enhanced the accountability of public servants.
- It has encouraged individuals to report cases of corruption.
- Investigations and Recommendations: Lokpal and Lokayuktas have initiated inquiries into several corruption cases, leading to investigations and recommendations for action against those found guilty.
- Some cases have been successfully pursued and resulted in action taken against the accused individuals.
Various Examples
- Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta: In Uttar Pradesh, the Lokayukta played a crucial role in exposing corruption.
- For instance, during Mayawati’s tenure as Chief Minister, the Lokayukta unearthed disproportionate assets cases against her and her ministers. This led to probes and resultant actions against several high-profile officials.
- Karnataka Lokayukta’s Sting Operations: The Karnataka Lokayukta conducted successful sting operations, exposing bribery and corruption among government officials.
- In one case, a video sting operation revealed corrupt practices by a minister, leading to his resignation and subsequent legal actions.
- Delhi’s Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB): While not under the Lokayukta directly, Delhi’s ACB, following a model similar to the Lokayukta, has been involved in exposing corruption.
- It conducted a sting operation against government officials accepting bribes, resulting in their arrest and subsequent legal proceedings.
- Tamil Nadu Lokayukta’s Impact: Tamil Nadu’s Lokayukta has played a role in addressing complaints against public officials.
- For instance, it investigated a case against a government official involved in disproportionate assets, leading to punitive actions.
Various Committees And their Recommendations
| Santhanam Committee, 1962 |
- Examined measures to combat corruption and malpractices among public servants.
- Recommended the establishment of a machinery to ensure the proper investigation and punishment of corrupt public servants.
|
| Law Commission, 20th Report, 1967 |
- Recommendation: Advocated the creation of a centralized agency for investigating allegations of corruption against public officials.
- Proposed the appointment of a non-political, independent agency to curb corruption in the public sector.
|
| First Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), 1966-1970 |
- Proposed the establishment of two special authorities, ‘Lokpal’ and ‘Lokayukta,’ modelled after the Scandinavian institution of Ombudsman and the parliamentary commissioner for investigation in New Zealand.
- Key Responsibilities: Address complaints against ministers and secretaries at both Central and state levels (Lokpal), and complaints against other specified higher officials (Lokayukta).
|
| Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), 2005 |
- Recommended reforms in the areas of public order, anti-corruption strategies, and governance.
- Suggested the need for an independent and empowered institution to investigate allegations of corruption against public officials at both the central and state levels.
|
| Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), Report on Ethics in Governance, 2007 |
- Emphasized the need for strong anti-corruption measures and proposed measures to promote ethical conduct among public servants.
- Highlighted the importance of a comprehensive framework to deal with corruption and maladministration.
|
| Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law, and Justice |
- Reviewed and made recommendations on the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Bill, 2011.
- Contributed to the final version of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013, by examining the bill’s provisions and suggesting amendments.
|
Way Forward
- Streamlined Complaint Procedures: Simplifying and streamlining the complaint filing process would remove barriers for individuals willing to report cases.
- Emphasizing substance over formality could encourage more genuine complaints.
- Empower Suo Motu Authority: Granting Lokpal and Lokayukta institutions limited suo motu authority to initiate investigations in specific cases of public interest could enhance their proactive role in addressing corruption and maladministration.
- Resource Allocation: Ensuring adequate staffing, infrastructure, and financial resources would enhance the operational efficiency of these institutions, allowing them to handle a larger number of cases effectively.
- Reducing Political Interference: Ensuring autonomy and independence by insulating Lokpal and Lokayukta from political influence or interference can bolster their credibility and effectiveness.
- Collaboration and Cooperation: Establishing better coordination and collaboration between Lokpal, Lokayukta, law enforcement agencies, and other related bodies could streamline investigations and ensure prompt action on identified cases.
- Review and Amendment: Periodic review of the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act could identify loopholes or limitations and facilitate necessary amendments to strengthen their mandate and functionality.
- Transparency Mechanisms: Instituting transparent processes for handling complaints against high-ranking officials, like the Prime Minister, would increase public trust and confidence in the accountability mechanisms.
- State-Level Implementation: Encouraging states that haven’t yet established Lokayukta to expedite the process, ensuring citizens across the nation have access to local grievance redressal mechanisms.
Conclusion
Despite the challenges faced by Lokpal and Lokayuktas, they represent a significant step towards promoting ethical governance in India.
- By addressing issues like delayed appointments and resource constraints, these institutions can become more effective in their roles.
- Strengthening their operational capacity and independence will help foster greater public trust. Ultimately, a robust Lokpal and Lokayukta system can contribute to a more accountable and corruption-free India.
